






Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Various moral and philosophical issues related to affirmative action, animal rights, and environmental ethics. Topics include preferential hiring, quota hiring, consequences of affirmative action, speciesism, animal liberation, inherent value, moral agents and patients, biocentric outlook on nature, and endangered species. Essay questions are provided to stimulate critical thinking and debate.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Chapter 10: Discrimination A. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: a. Lists general guidelines as steps to affirmative action b. Under these steps firms must: i. Issue a written equal-employment policy and an affirmative action commitment ii. Appoint a top official with responsibility and authority to direct and implement their program iii. Publicize their policy and affirmative action commitment iv. Survey female and minority employment by department and job classification, and where underrepresentation of these groups, firms must develop goals and timetables in order to achieve these goals B. Affirmative Action : positive measures beyond neutral nondiscriminatory and merit hiring employment practices. It is an aggressive program intended to identify and remedy unfair discrimination practiced against many people who are qualified for jobs. a. Preferential Hiring - an employment practice designed to give special consideration to people from groups that traditionally have been victimized racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination. b. Quota Hiring - sometimes ordered by courts for a specific organization that had expressly refused to hire certain groups, until some appropriate balance could be achieved. c. Individual vs. Collective approaches i. Individual being discriminated against vs. collective race being discriminated against in the past that set the race back ii. Individual is not discriminating but not doing anything about it. Only hiring on qualifications. iii. Collective approach, unfortunately discrimination can be institutional or unintentional. Not only should we not discriminate, but we should enforce with laws that eliminate discrimination. Hiring based on affirmative action. C. Types of discrimination a. Intentional/unintentional: knowingly vs. unknowingly b. Individual/ institutional: one person making an assumption vs. business, company, corporation, profession, system doing it c. Reverse Discrimination- unfair treatment of a majority member (usually a white male). D. Beauchamp: a. Problems with individual approaches i. Two Polar Positions
requirements at the minimum, a candidate with a maximum in one area does not succeed the other. Well rounded qualifications, minimally qualified. The best fit wins. F. Blackstone: a. Consequences and justice of affirmative action i. Not practical: You are not responsible for your ancestors doing bad things. This isn’t fair. ii. Slippery slope: Other minorities will claim setbacks as well. iii. Reverse discrimination: Affirmative Action programs are Reverse Discrimination programs and they don’t endorse themselves, philosophically. The programs are there to support the overcoming of discrimination but they set back the typical white male. b. Practical problems with quota systems i. It effectively eliminates others from the competition, disregarding qualifications. ii. And when this happens, how will we justify it when reverse discrimination is illegal is prohibited by our constitutional and ethical commitments? iii. Neutral compensatory policies can replace AA guidelines, and compsensate those who have had burdens set upon them. Neutral organizations would grant compensation rather than there be AA guidelines. These organizations would support overcoming discrimination where as reverse discrimination, or AA, would not. Chapter 11: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics A. Three approaches to environmental ethics a. Anthropocentric- Human centered b. Biocentric- Life centered c. Ecocentric- Ecosystem centered B. Singer- a. Greatest Happiness Principle b. Sentience and utilitarian ethics - i. Suffer without Physical pain, and Pain without Suffering, the capacity to suffer or be happy. Since we morally ought to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, since nonhuman animals are just as capable of happiness and suffering as human animals, our calculations ought to include them as well. c. Speciesism- i. Relevant difference-Cruelty to animals is wrong but do they matter as much or more than humans or other animals? d. Animal Liberation- “All sentient beings are equal” i. Spectrum of living things, from trees to humans. Trees cannot feel pain. They are not sentient. Scallops are not truly sentient; they just have a nervous system. Humans would be at the top of the list, being sentient, having the ability to reason and rationalize. C. Regan a. Subjects of a life - i. That the animals have a certain sense of FLO, animals have the right to have a full and natural life. b. Inherent value vs. instrumental value- i. that individuals of moral worth have a value independent of their capacities or interests; the being has rights if it has inherent value. Instrumental means an animal is need because it is about to be extinct and helps nature. Ex: If an animal is needed to help humans or nature. c. Moral agents vs. moral patients- i. moral agents are beings who are free and rational and thus capable of making of decisions on their own. ii. moral patients are those who we care about but cannot be free rational at the time, or fully developed. EX: 10 year old, pet, person in a coma
Were the experiments conducted by Dr. Thomas Gennarelli at the University of Pennsylvania’s Experimental Head Injury Lab ethical? Did the baboons used in these experiments have a right not to be harmed in this manner, even though the results of the experiments could potentially benefit human beings? Is there another way that this data could have obtained that did not harm animals?
Should human beings care about endangered species such as the spotted owl? What obligations, if any, do human have to individual animals, whole species, and the natural environment as a whole? Is it acceptable to only keep those species alive that directly benefit human beings by aiming for an “optimal level of pollution”?
Should pornography be widely available on the Internet? What are the criteria for obscene speech and what types of pornography count as obscene for adults and for children? Does pornography cause significant enough harm to individuals and society that it should be banned? What legal limitations should we place on it? Richard Spinello A) Miller v. Califorinia 1973 Criteria for obscene speech (wrong for everyone)-
Should stem cell research be legal in the United States? Is there anything wrong with using stem cells to help cure diseases affecting adults and children, or does it just depend on the type of stem cell used? Is it ethical to use embryonic stem cells? A) Criteria for human: Bonnie Steinbock I. Biological vs. personhood- a. has human DNA, b. is a full member of a moral community c. has interests that entail certain rights B) Feinbergs’ interest principle applied to embryo’s- a. is only morally permissible using either discarded or created embryos- b. embryos in the early-gestation have no consciousness, no awareness, no experiences of any kind, even the most rudimentary. c. No sentience. C) Marquis’ FLO argument vs. McMahan’s mind essentialism (carpa diem) – a. Marquis, FLO, abortion is only okay for horrible deformity, not the oops i. Marquis’ Potential problems in Interest View
What are the benefits and limitations of the USA PATRIOT Act? Is it just? If we suspected a US citizen of having terrorist ties to Al Qaeda, would it be just to tap his phone, read his e-mail, search his premises, confiscate his property and incarcerate him indefinitely? If we suspected that he had information about a planned terrorist strike, would it be ethical to torture him until he revealed that information? The plan for this essay is to explain what the PATRIOT Act is and how it is unjust using the examples provided. Then we are going to say that Dershowitz states blah blah blah.. which says it is permissible to do the actions provided in the essay question. BUT we are going to say that his arguments are knocked down by Luban’s counterarguments, and ultimately it is not ethical to torture and/or treat human beings in such ways. USA Patriot Act David Cole A) Guilt by association - If you have ever associated with anyone who might be associated with terrorists, you are in trouble. B) Due process - We usually have to provide evidence that there is potential danger to lock someone up. With this, we do not need anything. We can lock anyone up indefinitely without any evidence whatsoever. You lose due process; you do not get a trial. C) Search & seizure - For someone to search your stuff, one must attain a warrant that is backed up with evidence that you are engaged in illegal activity. Under this, D) Military tribunals - Applying military guidelines to people of no military association and not in a time of war. In military tribunals, people cannot E) Attorney- client privilege- Normally what goes on between you and your attorney is confidential. Not under this; everything is out in the open. Because of the 5th^ amendment you do not have to testify against yourself. F) Profiling- Ethnic profiling. “Muslim terrorists” are wrong stereotypes. Most Muslims do not condone what Al Qaeda has done. Not every Muslim is a terrorist! Arguments FOR torture: Alan Dershowitz A) “ticking time bomb” a. Ex: Girl buried with 2 hours of oxygen and guy won’t speak B) Torture warrant a. Court ordered by a judge b. So that we don’t violate certain things, we have restrictions c. If he is a terrorist, then we are authorized to do certain things but not other exteme Counter Arguments AGAINST: David Luban A) The number game, chance & certainty a. Chance that the guy knows what you want to know and if he will tell you i. EX: Pakistani that said there were WMD that got us into war after being water boarded for 2.5 minutes and other various tortures. Did he just say that to stop the toture? b. Certainty is that I am intentionally casing pain to another human being based on the chance of them may or may not knowing something c. Ticking time bomb never really happens B) Practice vs. Policy a. What actually works in interrogation? b. Befriending terrorist is a better way of attaining information rather than torture. c. As of now we can perform enhanced interrogation strategies which allow shoving, but not hitting C) Torture culture a. Do we really want to inhabit a torture culture? i. EX: Majoring in Torturing, etc.
What is Charles Murray’s thought experiment about welfare? How would welfare capitalists, libertarians, and socialists respond to this proposition? If this thought experiment became reality, would it be just and would it have good consequences? Is there a middle-ground position on welfare that provides equal opportunity while eliminating the possibility of free-loaders (e.g., Emmitt the waiter)? Charles Murray (argues that we kill all welfare, free market system) i. The idea that welfare is taken away will take away comfort from free loaders a. This will spur everyone else will search harder and try harder to be successful and therefore freeloaders can’t successfully fall behind because there won’t be anything there to take care of them. He says let’s take away the net underneath the tight rop Welfare Capitalists (Rawls) *would be against Murray because capitalists would say that people need help in attaining A) Difference principle is defined as financial inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit society as a whole. B) Primary goods: We need to make sure everyone in society has access to primary good. A primary good is anything someone needs for a god life. Nutrition, Education, Health Care and Safe Housing Libertarians (John Hospers) *would endorse Murray because libertarians do not like people living off of others means. A) Natural Rights: life, liberty and property a. If I worked for it, I deserve it. Property rights make long range future planning happen. b. If people don’t have property rights, then nobody will do work because everyone will just steal from each other. c. The fruit of one’s labor should not be up for grabs by another. They cannot take your labor and the fruits of it, and claim it has his own. Freeloaders are unjust, unethical. Socialists (Marx) *In a socialist economy welfare would not exist. There would be no need for it because of the following: